tom007
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,612
|
Post by tom007 on Jun 12, 2012 0:35:00 GMT
i agree with mark on this why share when we can stay where we are until the new stadium is built.
makes perfect sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jun 12, 2012 8:22:44 GMT
Craven Cottage holds 26,000, how is it illogical to propose a ground share at a bigger stadium until our own is built? The owners hope that our continued status as a Premiership club will attract more people to the ground. That can't be achieved whilst we play at a stadium that holds 18,000. The reason why I mentioned Fulham is that it's not massive in capacity that would risk too many empty seats and closer for our fans to travel to. MarkQPR already explained the answer. I will add. How does leaving our ground empty whilst playing at another help our club? We won't grow our fanbase whilst playing somewhere else, that is pure folly and makes no sense whatsoever. Knowing our ground is sat there empty whilst a "new" one is being built may actively discourage fans from attending and therefore have the opposite effect on the fanbase!
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Jun 12, 2012 12:08:51 GMT
Manta I can see you're in Colorado, but are you an American? Cos you being so blasé about QPR moving to Craven Cottage, shows a lack of understanding of our culture.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jun 12, 2012 12:23:11 GMT
Obviously in America, teams do move. The Washington Redskins now play in Virginia....Some New York Sports teams play in New Jersey. The Brooklyn (NY) Dodgers Moved to California. The Washington Nationals came from Canada. Etc, etc.
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Jun 12, 2012 12:25:12 GMT
Leaving LR empty while playing at Craven Cottage would be nonsensical. Even if the uproar from the existing fanbase at such an arrangement could be overcome it just makes no business sense to gamble the extra costs of renting CC in the hope that we might attract more than 18,000 and justify bothering in the first place. A huge risk with a very limited financial gain in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jun 12, 2012 12:30:08 GMT
Beyond the finances; the crowds; the strangeness: There always would (or certainly SHOULD) be the concern that the fans would get screwed and suddenly get the announcements "Things change: No new stadium. We've becoming tenants of Fulham which could switch to Chelsea or Brentford or MK Dons...and then: We're MERGING!)
Bottom line: I'm sure our current guys are Fine.
But as the Russian saying goes: ""doveryai, no proverya" ("Trust But Verify")
|
|
|
Post by rangerray on Jun 12, 2012 13:05:03 GMT
Haven't Arsenal been successful in their move to the Emirates??
A move has to make financial sense and be in the right area and that is the problem.
Both Liverpool and Chelsea what larger stadium but can't find the right site.
On the matter of ground sharing I don't remember any significant problems when Foolham were at Loftus Road a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by canadaranger on Jun 14, 2012 6:32:30 GMT
Here's video from BC Place Stadium - a great design suited for crowds to 24,000 lower bowl, then open the upper bowl for another about that much... www.cfl.ca/video/index/id/74919
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Jun 14, 2012 8:23:34 GMT
Here's video from BC Place Stadium - a great design suited for crowds to 24,000 lower bowl, then open the upper bowl for another about that much... www.cfl.ca/video/index/id/74919It's a good idea but I don't like the design of it. The stands are way too far away from the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jun 14, 2012 9:47:55 GMT
Haven't Arsenal been successful in their move to the Emirates?? A move has to make financial sense and be in the right area and that is the problem. Both Liverpool and Chelsea what larger stadium but can't find the right site. On the matter of ground sharing I don't remember any significant problems when Foolham were at Loftus Road a few years ago. In answer to your first question pick one of the two immediately below: Arsenal's move to the Emirates was successful as it was a seemless transition to a larger well constructed stadium, built on time and within budget. Their attendances have grown since the move and the fans are happy with the new facilities which also allow them to generate further revenues by having concerts there, Coldplay recently played there and also by hosting other nations football matches, Brazil play their 'home' european games there. Or, no, it has not been a success. Since moving there Arsenal have gone backwards as a team. Where before they challenged for the title, since the move they have regressed, no longer challenge for the top spot and just about scrapped into the CL, mainly thanks to Spurs dramatic drop in form. Several top, key players have left, like Fabregas and Nasri who haven't been replaced and as such Arsenal are certainly not the force they were before the move. Either answer just depends on your point of view. Liverpool have not only identified their site but have had the planning permission granted to build, including approval of their stadium design by the council but this was a Gillette iniative from when he first took over and little more than a land grab of Anfield for housing redevelopment purposes. The site is still earmarked for them but the new owner has shown little intention to move. C*****a are just a bunch of cnuts. There were no problems with Fulham when we ground shared with them. We let Tarquin and his fellow fan Oscar bring their own foie gras and Pimms which gave neither of them room to complain. Fulham were also redeveloping their ground at the time and as such CC was unusable, so it was a necessary thing for them to do.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Jun 14, 2012 9:49:12 GMT
And never forget the Al-Fayed Toilet!
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jun 14, 2012 11:25:43 GMT
Haven't Arsenal been successful in their move to the Emirates?? A move has to make financial sense and be in the right area and that is the problem. Both Liverpool and Chelsea what larger stadium but can't find the right site. On the matter of ground sharing I don't remember any significant problems when Foolham were at Loftus Road a few years ago. In answer to your first question pick one of the two immediately below: Arsenal's move to the Emirates was successful as it was a seemless transition to a larger well constructed stadium, built on time and within budget. Their attendances have grown since the move and the fans are happy with the new facilities which also allow them to generate further revenues by having concerts there, Coldplay recently played there and also by hosting other nations football matches, Brazil play their 'home' european games there. Or, no, it has not been a success. Since moving there Arsenal have gone backwards as a team. Where before they challenged for the title, since the move they have regressed, no longer challenge for the top spot and just about scrapped into the CL, mainly thanks to Spurs dramatic drop in form. Several top, key players have left, like Fabregas and Nasri who haven't been replaced and as such Arsenal are certainly not the force they were before the move. Either answer just depends on your point of view. Liverpool have not only identified their site but have had the planning permission granted to build, including approval of their stadium design by the council but this was a Gillette iniative from when he first took over and little more than a land grab of Anfield for housing redevelopment purposes. The site is still earmarked for them but the new owner has shown little intention to move. C*****a are just a bunch of cnuts. There were no problems with Fulham when we ground shared with them. We let Tarquin and his fellow fan Oscar bring their own foie gras and Pimms which gave neither of them room to complain. Fulham were also redeveloping their ground at the time and as such CC was unusable, so it was a necessary thing for them to do. Your two answers to the Arse question are actually the complete and correct answer when combined as one.
|
|